1. Did the hon. the Minister of Public Works, or his agent, instruct Mr. Arthur E. B. Hill, C.E., of New Westminster, B.C., in January' 1900, to make an inspection of the Serpentine river, in the district of New Westminster, B.C., from the coast meridian road to the sea, and report as to work required to prevent the overflow of the stream?

2. Did Mr. Hill state in writing that he 'should be pleased to make such survey on the same terms as those on which he served the provincial government, namely, $10 per day and maintenance from date of commencing work to date of completion of plans and report'?

3. Did the hon. the Minister of Public Works, or his agent, demur at the time to those terms?

4. Did Mr. Hill commence the work on the 26th January, 1900, and on the 27th April, 1900, deliver his report, together with design, plans, specification and estimate of cost of work required, to the hon. the Minister of Public Works?

5. Did Mr. Hill send in his bill for $872.66?

6. Has the same or any part of it been paid to him? If not, why not?

7. Is it not a fact that Mr. Hill's letters asking for payment have been left unanswered?

8. Did the hon. the Minister of Public Works, in reply to a letter from Mr. Hill's solicitor, asking for settlement of account, write as follows:-'Mr. Roy, in whom I have great confidence, tells me that Mr. Hill's claim is an exorbitant one. Mr. Keefer has been authorized to offer you $450 ' ?

9. Did Mr. Hill's solicitor write to the hon. the Minister of Public Works asking him to refer the ease to the Exchequer Court of Canada, under the 23rd section of the 'Exchequer Court Act'?

10. Is it not a fact that this letter still remains unanswered and unacknowledged?

11. Did the hon. the Secretary of State receive a petition of right to the King's most Excellent Majesty from Mr. Hill on the 5th March, 1901, praying that his claim he adjudicated upon?

12. Has any fiat been issued thereon?

13* Is it a fact that the reason why no flat has issued is because the hon. Minister of Public Works refuses to make a report to the hon. Minister of Justice on the said petition of right? If so, for what reason?

14. Was Mr. Hill's work done in a satisfactory manner from a scientific standpoint?

15. What cogent reasons can the hon. Minister of Public Works give for not paying the account in full?

16. Is not Mr. Hill a member of the Institute of Civil Engineers of Great Britain?

17. Is it not a fact that Mr. Hill refused to endorse the scheme under which the dredging was being carried on by Mr. Roy, the resident government engineer?

18. Do Mr. Hill's report and plans show that the money spent by the government has been laid out to good advantage, and that the scheme has been crowned with success?

The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tartej :

1. Yes. A letter of instructions sent to Mr. Hill by Mr. Worsfold, acting resident engineer, to make inspection and report as to the work required to prevent the overflowing, on the 26th of January, 1900.

2. Yes.

3. No.

4. No. Mr. Hill was instructed on the 26th of January, 1900, to make an inspection of the Serpentine river, from the coast meridian road to the sea, and report. He commenced operations on the 29th of January, and completed his work and handed his report on February 9th. Mr. Hill was further instructed, on the 26tli of February, 1900, to prepare plans and estimates in connection with the works he recommended, with the aid of the survey he had already made at the mouth of the river, in compliance with a suggestion made at the end of his report of the 9th or February.

5. Mr. Hill was paid at the rate of 810 per day and living expenses, from the 29th of January to the 9tli of February, the date on which he made his report, in compliance with the instructions he received from Mi'. Worsfold, on the 26th of January, and as per his own statement he furnished Mr. Worsfold.

Mr. Hill sent in a further account for $862.46, on the 27th of April, being a charge of 24 per cent of the estimated cost of the works he recommended to De performed in his report of the 27th of April. On the 31st of August, Mr. Hill sent in an amended account, at the rate of $10 per day, and an allowance for maintenance for 17 days, at the rate of $40 per month, amounting in all to $872.66.

6. Mr. Hill's account for $872.66 has not been paid, because it is considered unreasonable.

7. The hon. the minister may not have answered all the letters, but he did answer to those which required an answer.

8. Yes. Mr. Keefer was instructed by Mr. Roy, on the 17th of August, 1900, to offer

Mr. Hill $400 in settlement of bis claim for $872.66. The figure $450 referred to in the minister's letter should read $400.

9. Yes.

10. Mr. Hill's solicitor's letter acknowledged by the hon. the minister on the 3rd of December, 1900, and a further letter from the hon. the minister, dateu December 12th.

11. Yes.

12. No.

13. The hon. the minister is of the opinion that the claim is an imposition.

14. Mr. Hill's technical work seems to have been done in a satisfactory manner, but his recommendations have not been concurred in by the department.

15. Because it is considered unreasonable.

16. I do not know.

17. No dredging has been carried on by Mr. Roy.

18. The works recommended by Mr. Hill have not been executed.

1. Is it the duty of the head lockmaster on the government canals to take care of his lock on the Sunday?

2. Can the lockmaster appoint one of his lock-tenders to look after the lock on the Sunday?

3. The locktenders, not being paid for this Sunday work when it is required from them, is it the intention of the government to indemnify them in that behalf?

4. Will such indemnity apply to the past or only to the future?

1. The regulation as regards the care of the locks on Sundays varies according to circumstances on the several canals.

2. The practice of several of the canals is for the locktenders to take it in turn to perform the service, but on Chambly canal the lockmaster performs the duty.

3. We pay the locktenders up to six o'clock Sunday morning, and no Sunday work takes place after that hour. It has always been customary on some of the canals for one of the men in turn to keep a supervision over the lock during the day on Sunday, but for this no pay has been allowed. This duty is imposed, and has always in these cases been imposed, so far as the department is aware, without objection.

4. This is covered by the answers to the preceding questions.

1. Is the Quebec Central Railway under the legislative control of this parliament?

2. Has the company received subsidies from the Dominion government; and if so, to what amount?

3. Is the government aware that the running of trains on the said railway is suspended every spring, for two or three weeks at a time?

4. Is the company entrusted with the carrying of the mails; and how is the transport effected while the train service is suspended?

1. Yes.

2. Yes : $348,342.

3. No.

4. Yes. The interrupted train service on the Quebec Central Railway is on the branch line between Beauce Junction and St. Frangois de Beauce, distance 15 miles. The mail service has been performed by hand car during spring floods. Regular train service has been operated since the 26th of April.

1. Are the government aware, as reported in * Hansard ' for Wednesday, 3rd of April, that Mr. Speaker informed the House that a vacancy has occurred in the representation of the electoral district of the west riding of the county of Hastings by the resignation of Henry Corby, and that in accordance with chapter 13, section 5, subsection 2 of the Revised Statutes of Canada he had issued his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to make out a new writ of election for the said district?

Has such writ been issued in accordance with the warrant of Mr. Speaker?

If not, why not; and when will It be issued?

1. Yes. Mr. Speaker has issued his warrant for a writ for the constituency of West Hastings. The writ will be issued without undue delay.

Mr. SPROULE asked :

Referring to the Statutes of Canada, 60-61 Victoria, chapter 5, by which the Crown became entitled to select 50,000 acres of coal lands from any area of coal lands earned by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company by the construction of the Crow's Nest line of railway in British Columbia :

1. What steps have been taken by the government towards making such selection and when is it expected that it will be completed?

2. Has the Canadian Pacific Railway Company verbally or otherwise requested to be allowed to select any portion of such area in advance or priority to the government, and what, if any, reply has been given to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company?

1. An examination has been made by an officer of the Geological survey, but no selection has yet been made.

2. No application has been received by the Department of the Interior, and if a verbal request has been made, it would have been to the minister, who is now absent.

TELEPHONE COMPANIES' MILEAGE, &c.

The information which I shall give to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke), in answer to this question, has been supplied by the president of the Bell Telephone Company at my request. It does not cover all the provinces of the Dominion, but only Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and the North-west Territories. The president had not available the information regarding the other provinces, and we had not time to procure it.

1. The mileage operated by the Bell Telephone Company in Canada is divided as follows :

Miles of Wire.

Province of Quebec-

Subscribers' lines 22,673

Long distance lines 7,092

30,765

Province of Ontario-*

Subscribers' lines 39,401

Long distance lines 14,040

53,441

Province of Manitoba-

Subscribers' lines 4,017

Long distance lines 218

4,235

North-west Territories-

Subscribers' lines 169

Total 88,610

Miles of Poles.

Province of Quebec-

Subscribers' lines 513

Long distance lines 2,219

*

2,732

Province of Ontario-

Subscribers' lines 973

Long distance lines 4,088

5,061

Province of Manitoba-

Subscribers' lines 81

Long distance 'lines 218

299

North-west Territories-

Subscribers' lines 25

Total 8,117

2. The number of subscribers to the Bell Telephone Company in each of the provinces of the Dominion is as follows :

Province of Quebec 13,360

" Ontario

23,459" Manitoba

2,014North-west Territories

302Total

39,135

Mr. CLARKE.

The hon. gentleman has overlooked the question asked about the other companies.

I could not get the information, or we had not got it in time from the other companies.